Short and Simple Political Essays

Friday, June 2, 2017

Kathy Griffin posing with a simulated severed head of Donald Trump is a federal crime.
It's not free speech, and every person knows it.
It's a threat, a treachery, propaganda, and treason.
She must be insane for publicity if she is sane at all.
If not, she seeks her own demise, publicly and legally.

There's more to it, though.
That is an ISIS pose she struck.
Like Jihadi John, she is a terrorist, aiming to put fear into hearts.
She admitted to wanting Barron Trump frightened.
Obviously, she also believes President Trump will feel some fear from her.
She is demented, is she not?
Furthermore, the "stunt" as it were proves to those on the Left she means business.
This is a warning also to those on the Left who would "betray" her and the "cause."
Anderson Cooper should watch his back.
Or will he turn back to her?
Wait and see.

ISIS is howling with glee at our weakness in not arresting Griffin.
ISIS and any other Islamic country or organization would've done the right thing, and brought her to justice.
We do not.
By doing nothing, we prove to the Left and ISIS they can go further.
Why are we doing nothing?
Is this the plan?

Kathy Griffin threw in with ISIS with this fake decapitation.
This agrees with many whites on the Left who have already or will now join an ISIS-like anti-American terrorism.
Whether the ISIS-imitating "antifa" or the red-flag-waving Bill-Ayers-led communists, their numbers are growing.
They bloat with our inaction.
They drool for our essence, our natural resources and weapons.

However, they shall not get them.
Not because the sane whites on the Left, Right, and in the middle will stop them.
Oh no.
But rather because we will NOT stop these traitors to country and race.
Then, the Islamic militants who have been allowed to enter, settle, and train in the USA will come to life.
I would like to say we will beat them back, but we can't even beat back Kathy Griffin!
She is the epitome of ISIS behavior, and she walks free.
ISIS has little to fear, I think.

The Left has whipped up hysteria so that our friends, family, and neighbors believe Donald Trump is the insane one.
The only insanity I see, however, is in letting these people get away with it.
Where are the arrests for sedition against the likes of Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dogg, and Madonna?
You may call them "has-beens" but the Left calls them "heroes."
When you permit scum to be heroes, you get revolution.
By doing nothing, we are begging for it.

The white Left is suicidal because they invite ISIS into the very place they said should be safe for women and gays.
The white Left is suicidal because they think their lives will be uninterrupted by invaders and savages.
The white Left is suicidal for putting trust in godless men who want to nuke Mars and create other dimensions at CERN.
The white RIGHT, however, is suicidal for not putting a stop to this!

In every case, this is the REAL white privilege: to think anything goes and there will be no suffering for it.
There WILL be suffering.
There will be world war and local war, skirmishes and riots.
There will be chemical warfare and germ warfare, dirty bombs and suitcase bombs.
There will be patricide and matricide, fratricide and suicide.
There will be increased chemical dependency and apathy.
The Overton Window and normalcy bias will register off the charts.

If you cannot understand what I'm saying, there's something wrong with you.
If you cannot believe what I'm saying, I feel sorry for you but I also am very angry with you.
If America will not come together, America will be dragged apart.
That's all there is to it.
We live or die TOGETHER.
If not, our enemies will take our natural resources, and kill us with our own weapons.
This is and has been their plan from the start.

What do you think the Left's obsession with our guns and atomic weapons is all about?
What do you think the Left's obsession with our carbon and climate is all about?
What do you think the Left's obsession with education is all about?
They want the weapons and resources, and will do anything to win.

There is no option.
The Left is obviously suicidal.
However, they will not simply go away and leave us in charge.They want to take us with them!
Therefore, by whatever means necessary, we must stop their suicidal march into oblivion.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

UNDERSTANDING LIBERAL MANIA & PSYCHOSIS

by Tom Wise
You may think it is difficult to understand the liberal mindset, but it’s not.
While you struggle to understand liberals, they make no such effort to understand you, but only PRETEND to do so.
When you make salient and sane points, they come at it like a shark on chum rather than Aristotle to a puzzle.
When you try to attach yourself to their point of view, they detach to icy distraction.

Dealing with liberals is therefore the same as dealing with children, drunks, or former girlfriends.
It is an exercise in futility which will not educate either or you.
Nor will it provide any satisfaction.
As soon as you believe you’ve made your point, they will act as if you never spoke.
As soon as you ask for proof, they will storm off.

Do you understand yet?
You can only deal with liberals when you do not take them seriously.
This sounds easy but it is difficult for the average conservative who desires to deal in fairness when arguing.
Unlike the liberal who CLAIMS to be fair, the conservative IS fair – to a fault.
Your trust is misplaced in the liberal.
They will not play fair, be compassionate, behave civilly, or do any of the other things they claim to believe in.
They cannot, because they don’t know how.
They only know how to DEMAND that YOU be fair, compassionate, and civil.

This leads us to the two rules of understanding liberals:

The first rule is:
(1) THEY PROJECT.
What is projection?
Essentially, it is blaming someone else for what you’ve done.
Or, it is placing attributes of your own on someone else, for vicarious or nefarious reasons.
With the liberals, they project for one main reason:
They don’t know how to take blame or responsibility for their actions.

Often you will hear a liberal say, “This is the fault of the Republicans” without any reservation or compromise.
In fact, “compromise” to a liberal is when you move forward a step and they stay put – or even move a step back!
When you hesitate, they accuse you of “obstruction” or “xenophobia” or some other name-calling designed to confuse you.
Yes, they want you confused so they can continue on in their insanity.
Misery loves company.
Why should THEY stand in one place and take the blame for what they’ve done when they have YOU to drag into it?
Better yet, drag you in, throw mud at you, and walk away with a smug look, as you stammer and sputter.

Sound familiar?
It should be.
It is an old tactic used by one sibling to blame the other sibling, to avoid punishment of any kind.
People who commit crimes, and who hurt people willingly, use this tactic also.
They justify their actions by saying the other person deserved it.
“If only you hadn’t done such-and-such, I wouldn’t have done these things.”

There is no confession from a liberal, and no responsibility taken.
They will blame everything except themselves.
Why?
If they blamed themselves, they would have to change.
Why would liberals NOT want to change?
A few reasons.
Mainly, however, they do not believe they are wrong about anything.
This is a psychosis which stems from their neurosis.
They believe they are better than you because they cannot admit they are wrong.
Megalomania is one of the outward symptoms of this psychosis.
They hold themselves up as the “only ones” who have done right, or who can fix things.
Another symptom of their psychosis is to attack, because it’s easier to cause more trouble than to fix the current trouble.

The second rule of understanding liberals is:
(2) THEY STEAL IDEAS, THEY DON’T INVENT THEM.
Communism famously cries, “Seize the means of production!”
This means, TAKE what has already been constructed from those who made it.
They want to seize from you and use this plunder to fund their utopian goals.
Consequently, liberals are notorious tax-and-spenders.
They see your labor as a cheese-pot from which they can ladle out goodies to others.
Why?
Many reasons:
(a) Their ideas are so pie-in-the-sky and horrible that they cannot be sufficiently funded voluntarily.
(b) They wish to corrupt a populace with the goodies, for dependency and to send votes in their direction.
(c) They LIKE the POWER of doing it.

Liberal TAKE ideas and destroy them.
They take inner cities and make them hellholes of poverty and crime.
How?
They infuse money without accountability.
They deter police from doing their job.
They rabble-rouse the worst elements.

They also destroy ideas for fun.
Unlike conservatives, who honestly debate, a main goal of the liberal is to stop opposing views.
Why?
Because their views are generally unworkable, too costly, and many times insane.
Unlike conservatives, who will listen to reason concerning criticism, liberals do not.
They CANNOT.
They believe they are always right, remember?
If you try to work with their ideas, they accuse you of sabotage and obstructionism.
If their ideas fail, they accuse their opposition of RACISM, or rigging, to name two things.

Liberals also steal good ideas so they can claim these good and valid ideas as THEIRS.
They claim to have invented the public library, but this is not true.
They claim to have invented governmental charity or benefits, but this is not true.
If a liberal HAS invented something useful and affordable, it is rare.
And no, I will not “produce the evidence” because we ALREADY know this to be true and they will NEVER admit it to be true!

And, at heart, this is what hurts liberals the most.
They know we see them for what they are.
People who say one thing and do another.
People who say “trust us” and then betray that trust at the deepest levels.
People who say they are for good and right, and then indulge in the worst types of corruption and debasement.
People who say they will help and never harm, then turn around and claim their failures are the fault of others.

So if you debate a liberal, be aware that 99 times out of 100 you will not win in any permanent way.
You will not find common ground that does not disappear soon enough.
You will not find an ally you can trust, but rather a snake who will use your words and feelings against you.

Conservatives MUST understand that to trust a liberal is the same as putting your hand into an open flame.
You are deliberately and consciously asking to be burned.

What is the solution?
Essentially, conservatives must band together to defeat liberals ALWAYS.
They should be defeated at the polls and be withheld from public office as often as possible.
This means more passionate conservatives need to become active, and run for office.
Liberal voices must be kept to the outskirts, where they can offer their “ideas” from a safe distance.
Sensible conservative voices must drown out the utopian nonsense of the average liberal.
And forceful conservatives must learn to hit hard and not be too civil in discourse.
Weak discourse leads to liberals taking office!

This article is designed to be a short course in defending yourself from the mental and emotional harm in dealing with liberals.
I hope in that respect I’ve opened a few eyes and motivated a few conservatives to run for office.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Barack Obama forcefully secured an Iran deal that gave the Shia nation a great chance to secure nuclear weapons. As well, he unlocked hundreds of billions in Iranian funds, giving Iran even more leverage. What was the upshot of this deal? First, Israel fiercely criticized this deal, primarily on existential grounds that it threatened the security of Israel. Second, accusations were made that Obama exceeded his authority in making such a deal. Remember? Was it a treaty or not? Why was the money delivered under cover of darkness? What safeguards were put in place to ensure Iran would abide by any deal at all? By every measure, the deal was a failure of common sense, protocol, and possibly lawfulness.

Does this mean Obama loves Iran? Well, he did call Iran a "small nation" that posed no real threat to the United States. He did pledge to make friends with our enemies, for whatever reason, whether for good, to mend fences, or for evil. He did not really push for the release of any American taken prisoner by Iran. By every measure, Obama seems to love Iran, and want that nation to succeed in whatever venture it takes on.

Is Obama a Shia Muslim? Iran is a Shia nation. By contrast, every other Muslim nation in the world is primarily Sunni. Shia and Sunni are relentlessly at each other's throats to snuff out the competing Islamic variation. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? Say what you will, that this was political, or a proxy war, but the Sunni-Shia rivalry is visceral and real. By assisting Iran in the way he did, Obama appears to have taken the Shia side. Since Islam is not only a religious but also a political movement, one could rightly say Obama acted as a good Shia Muslim.

Obama was partly raised in Indonesia, where he learned Islam. Presumably, he learned Sunni Islam, as Indonesia is primarily a Sunni nation. Did Obama turn on his Sunni upbringing to become a Shia Muslim, evidenced by his continued assistance of Iran? True, Obama has covered for the Saudis, and even bowed in front of them. Yet, there is more Iranian than anything in his bloodstream, it seems. Valerie Jarrett, his chief of staff, is an Iranian.

What has this to do with Russia?

Well, you see, Russia is ALSO on the side of the Shia. This does not mean Russia or Vladimir Putin is Shia. Rather, Russia is helping Iran to be a superpower in order to keep the spread of Sunni terrorism at bay. Russia does not tolerate Islamic terrorism or extremism in its borders, which is why we don't hear about it. Chechnya, which is Sunni by populace, is a target for Russia in order to keep the Sunni terrorists at bay. Likewise, the Syrian civil war is a war against Sunni terrorism in order to keep the Russian gas and oil pipelines, which run through Turkey into Europe, safe. What they don't tell you on the nightly news is that Russia is interfering in Syria to save several pipelines. Bordering several Sunni nations, Russia has a real issue with Islamic terrorism. So it would appear to be prudent that Russia would team up with Iran, the Shia, to keep their mutual enemy, the Sunni, at bay.

Decidedly, the evidence points to a relationship between Obama, Russia, and Iran to fight the Sunni. Remember when Obama in 2012 leaned over to Medvedev and said, "Tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election"? The uproar on the Right was severe, yet the Democrats hardly blinked. Naturally, the Dems protect their own.

The question is, if Russia and Obama are on the same side, why is the Left attacking Trump for speaking with Russia? Could it be that by "speaking to Russia" the Left means Trump is undoing the Iran deal, and therefore putting Russia in danger? Does the Left love Russia and Putin? From the public displays and spectacles, one would think not. According to the placards and tweets, helping Russia in anyway is tantamount to helping Hitler, or being Hitler. The Left has turned into a vulgar caricature of Joe McCarthy (who, by the way, was right), attempting to purge from the government and public sphere anyone who seems to consort with Russia. Even SPEAKING with an ambassador of Russia (NOT a crime!) is considered worthy of public shaming and eventual impeachment.

The only conclusion which makes sense is that the Left does not want Donald Trump to retract the Iranian deal. At this late date, it's hard to see what might be retracted. The money is delivered, the nuclear material is being synthesized, and half the world, believing in Obama, has apparently gone Sunni. Nevertheless, the Left fears Trump very much, and it is not yet revealed what they fear. Perhaps it is all Fake News outrage, and the Left is not concerned at all about Trump defeating Obama's Iranian deal, knowing it is completed. Perhaps the "outrage" is that he has the nerve to try, or to say he will try, and to beat Trump into submission, or at least silence. Perhaps the "outrage" is a false flag altogether, to cause the American people to think Trump is upending some delicate balance which will plummet everyone into World War 3.

Oddly, Russia does not appear to mind Trump interfering in the Iranian deal, though it is Russia which has much to lose in this respect. Perhaps Putin has calculated that the Iranian deal threatens Russia more than helps Russia, and is on Trump's side. Perhaps Putin wants some imbalance as a pretext to invading Chechnya, Georgia, or even Ukraine, meaning Trump is being used. Regardless, it's not as if Trump works in a vacuum. His generals, advisers, dignitaries, and other officials have all been around long enough to know the real story. We must have some faith that Trump is not working by himself, even if the Left insists he is a combination of Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon, a paranoid recluse with an enemies list and a plethora of compulsions.

The Iran deal is yet another piece of the puzzle in trying to discover what exactly is going on with the Left? Why is the Left foaming at the mouth about Russia when Russia is the birthplace of their beloved Leninism? Is modern-day Russia not communist enough for the Left? Or is Russia EXACTLY the way the Left likes it, and is Trump interfering with Leftist world domination? If so, why do they say Trump is a Russian spy? Typically, the Left uses Alinsky methods to mock and alienate their enemy, in this case projecting that Trump is a communist, when of course it is the Left who are communists. Will this ploy work? With Trump, it has not so far. He knows how to handle stress, the press, Fake News, and apparently politics also. Marginalizing Trump has only served to make him stronger and more popular, SO LONG AS he does not turn into a mealy-mouthed Republican and begin apologizing, explaining, and firing people who ought not be fired.

Wednesday, November 30, 2011

For me, it was the easy smile, the relaxed gesture, the firm handshake, the stable haircut. He was likable and consistently so, non-threatening and able to make even his liberal-leaning platforms seem plausible. But something changed.

During an interview November 29 with Bret Baer of Fox News, Mitt became agitated while receiving for the millionth time a question regarding "Romneycare." By itself, this means nothing. However, Baer reported to Bill O'Reilly that after the interview Mitt came to Baer and complained that the interview had been too aggressive. I don't know about you but this makes me shudder.

The end game we all fear, as it concerns our nation, is a tyranny. Such a terrifying scenario must include a leader who is delicate and egocentric. With Barack Obama, our country is in peril, gripped by a megalomaniac. The rumblings for this were self-evident during the 2007-2008 campaign season, when Obama and his team used such tactics as denying entry to certain reporters and punishing others for their questions. In other words, the precedent for recognizing a tyrant is already set.

Mitt, unfortunately, chose to either play that game or show his cards. It's not that he aired his frustration. It's not that he didn't have a legitimate complaint, having responded to that same question over and over. But once a candidate identifies himself as more conservative than not, he or she surrenders the right to be offended by anything less than the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. This is why we may forgive Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann for their respective attacks against a hostile media (in most recent incidents, Cain vs. unproven allegations, Bachmann vs. Jimmy Fallon). They were set ablaze, strafed. Mitt was grazed, and he groused without apology for his outburst.

To me, this separates the conservatives from the liberals. Conservatives already ought to have a hardened shell against any media barrage. And for Pete's sake, it was Fox News! That Mitt felt attacked by those who actually support him does not bode well for his future temperament.

Therefore, to nip this in the bud, I must eliminate Romney from my top tier.

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Let's say the Herman Cain story is true. This means as a moral people we should move away from Cain. Not because it's true but because he denied it. BUT... have you noticed that as Republicans have lost a little zeal for Cain, the media has begun to bash the Republicans. Yes, that's right. If the story is true and Republicans don't turn away from Cain, the media will make Republicans to be slime. However, if the story is true and Republicans DO turn away from Cain, the media will make Republicans to be capricious and - yep, you guessed it - racist.

It's already happening. Have you heard the little tirade where a certain reporter suggests that Republicans are afraid of a black man's "predatory sexuality"? What does that mean? It means that all of a sudden the media is shifting ever so slightly towards Cain, ready to pounce on the fair-weather friendliness of Republicans. The media has already won.

Let's say the Herman Cain story is false. The mere fact that some Republicans began to turn from Cain writes the same story.

"But... but," you protest, "The media TOLD us that Herman Cain was to be avoided. They certainly can't criticize us when we do what it is they trumpeted we ought to do." Oh, really? You mean the media can't play both sides at the same time, then attack the very conclusion that they themselves drew?

Let me tell you - not only will the media dig up the dirt, fabricate the story, push the witnesses to come forward, promise them treats if they spill their guts, and vomit the concoction all over everyone - they will also destroy the witnesses (as soon as they're finished), refute that they ever told such a story, attack anyone who says otherwise, and attack anyone who believed it in the first place. And that's if the story is TRUE!

If it's false, they will also make sure to cry "hypocrite!" to anyone who would hang the cross of blame onto them, associate those people with right-wing conspiracies, and ultimately make everyone look like a kook.

Consider the "birther" issue. Who started it? Hillary Clinton. Who took the blame? Right-wing conspiracy. Who made the transition? The media.

So, it doesn't matter to the media whether the Cain story originated with the Left, the Right, or the media itself. Eventually, they plan to take down not Cain, but the entire Republican Party, the Tea Party, and any black person who sympathizes. This is their terrific master plan. Hee haw.

What to do? Since Republicans will be blamed anyway, I say let's protect Cain until there is some concrete evidence he did something wrong. He's innocent until proven guilty, isn't he?

Monday, October 31, 2011

Last night, a report emerged that Herman Cain may have paid off two women concerning allegations of sexual harassment. The sources for the story were kept anonymous, the leads were thin, and no evidence was produced. More concerning, the payoffs were supposedly kept hush-hush (that is, sealed).

Today, Cain denied ever sexually harassing anyone (except his wife) but did acknowledge that false accusations had been leveled some 15-20 years ago while he was head of the National Restaurant Association (NRA). Concerning the alleged "settlements" paid out, Cain said he knew of none and that if the NRA had done so it was without his participation.

The question is, Who put this out to the media? Was it Mitt Romney, he most likely to benefit from a Cain fall? Was it Rick Perry, labeled by many a dirty player? I think not. I believe it was Barack Obama.

It would not be the first time that Obama has done such a thing. During his 2004 Senate race, Obama managed to have revealed the sealed divorce records for primary challenger Blair Hull and general challenger, Republican Jack Ryan. And don't forget that when Obama ran for Illinois State Senate his primary opponents were all disqualified for one reason or another. This is Obama's modus operandi.

Meanwhile Barack Obama has resisted and rejected every effort to make public his school records, his health records, even his financial records. And let's not forget how long it took to get his birth certificate.

I believe that Obama is behind the personal attacks against not only Cain but also Marco Rubio. A black or Hispanic conservative is a threat to the image carefully groomed by the progressive Left that "minorities" must vote Democrat. It busts apart the unthinking cliche that Democrats are the saviors of the oppressed and middle class. But more than that, it marks a contrast between racial politics and character politics.

What about the ineptness of Eric Holder? No, nothing on that. Only that Allen West, another black conservative Republican, is "rude" for his outspokenness. In actuality, they are calling West "uppity" while making Holder's arrogance "good politics."

This double standard is not new, and I was not born yesterday. But simply because the Democrats "always do this" or that the media is in the tank for them doesn't mean that we should let them get away with it.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Number 9... Number 9... Number 9. Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan may have its flaws but so did John Lennon's excursion into the morbid avant-garde, his mosaic "Revolution 9" found on the double-LP The Beatles, otherwise known as The White Album. Maybe "9-9-9" tries to do too much at once but so did "Revolution 9." Neither at first glance seems cohesive but if you know how it was constructed, and with which premises, they both make sense. Well, at least to their respective creators.

But I'm not bashing Cain or Lennon. Both have (had) a vision and both are (were) not bashful to have the public love it or hate it. Like Lennon, once Cain finished with his proposal he moved on to the next thing. You have to admire someone who has the courage to push the envelope and cause peers to respond as if they were just about to do the same thing (see Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich).

Keeping with the theme, Cain has amended his "9-9-9" to "9-0-9," which is just fine with fans of the Fab Four. "The One After 909" might be another term for Cain's next policy decision!

Don't forget also that "Taxman" witnesses to the concept that there's "one for you, 19 for me." This fits with the Cain theme that the government is seeking to eventually tax the rich at a rate which would push even more capital to other nations. Taking the Ron Paul approach to that, how long before they put up a fence to keep the money in? No, not a literal fence, but an economic trigger that disallows the movement of money out of the country. You shouldn't have to "keep all your money in a big brown bag inside the zoo"1.

Cain definitely understands that "Money" is what we want! We are a capitalist nation built upon industry, creativity, invention, and resources. The best things in life are free only for those hippies at Occupy Wall Street who didn't surrender to a nice cozy hotel room. Well, I guess they thought that "money was heaven sent”2.

Of course, "money can't buy me love" and Herman Cain knows the value in growing up poor among loving parents. His humility in defeating cancer lets us know that he has a better outlook than most of the rest of us.

So, let the White House understand that "if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"3. The fundamental transformation of our country is about to come to a screeching halt and, better, reverse. Then, as in "Yellow Submarine," it'll be "full speed ahead!"